Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Teancum]

As much as you need to believe your decision was entirely based on "the facts" and there were no other motives whatsoever for your choice. Gotta love symmetry.

I do not claim that my conclusions nor decisions are entirely fact based. Certianly many factors play in. Emotions, personality make up, genetics, dispositions and on and on. However I can assure you that they were not based, and still are not, on a desire to find the church false, sin, excuse for not serving or seeking a way out. As noted I still attend and serve, tithe and all of it. In fact my studies were to defend and to find the Church true. And yes it is heartbreaking that at least for me, the evidence, prayers and searching have led me in another direction.

[ERayR]

I do not claim that my conclusions nor decisions are entirely fact based. Certianly many factors play in. Emotions, personality make up, genetics, dispositions and on and on. However I can assure you that they were not based, and still are not, on a desire to find the church false, sin, excuse for not serving or seeking a way out. As noted I still attend and serve, tithe and all of it. In fact my studies were to defend and to find the Church true. And yes it is heartbreaking that at least for me, the evidence, prayers and searching have led me in another direction.

Yes, I can agree that it is heartbreaking that what you have chosen to believe has led you to this point when others, with the same information, have retained their testimonies.

[bluebell]

Not sure if this has been posted yet or not:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/07/skeptical-about-the-nyts-mormon-skeptic-piece/

I love the quote in the article (from the guy who opposes Mormon teachings and was actually excited to read a piece on Mormonism and doubt but thinks the article was a bit of a hit piece) says about the church's publication of the JS papers-

"The reporter’s follow-up assertion is just baffling: “But the church has not actively disseminated most of these documents …” What … what does that mean? What’s the standard for active dissemination? They’re being open and honest in secret?"

Sometimes that's exactly what it seems like certain critics are saying.

[Teancum]

That may be so but until they recognize it is a choice no progress can be made. What I am trying to do is hold up the mirror if they can not see then, until they do, no body can help them. All that can be done is offer soothing platitudes to make them feel good. The problem with a board like this is that it sometimes comes of as harsh when it is not meant that way.

Ok so I have been pondering this and yes it is choice. At this point, for me, based in study, prayer ,discussions and so on the evidence seems compelling to me enought to choose and decide the Church is not what I thought it was. I have also made a choice to go slow with this and that is what I am doing. I also had made a choice to try to go back to where I was and put the genie back in the bottle. That choice has not worked yet and I do not see how it can. There are some things that just cannot be turned back.

[canard78]

I do not claim that my conclusions nor decisions are entirely fact based. Certianly many factors play in. Emotions, personality make up, genetics, dispositions and on and on. However I can assure you that they were not based, and still are not, on a desire to find the church false, sin, excuse for not serving or seeking a way out. As noted I still attend and serve, tithe and all of it. In fact my studies were to defend and to find the Church true. And yes it is heartbreaking that at least for me, the evidence, prayers and searching have led me in another direction.

This I also agree with and possibly we've been talking at different topics.

I agree that you/me/others usually don't choose to stop believing and then back-fill with other evidence. Few people want to find the organisation false when they've given so much to it. Few people first choose to sin and then forsake belief to justify the sin.

However a change in circumstance will often be the impetus for wider investigation. Few people who are entirely content with life will question and investigate the value of that life. I read somewhere (I think Elder Jensen) who recognised that 90%+ of people who join the church were looking for something when they find it.

It is probably the same in the other direction. Not as a desire to leave (just as converts don't wake up with a desire to be a Mormon), but as a desire to respond to some issue/question or concern in life. The conclusion is not written. But there has to be a motive to start the investigation. And a choice to accept the eventual conclusion.

[canard78]

I love the quote in the article (from the guy who opposes Mormon teachings and was actually excited to read a piece on Mormonism and doubt but thinks the article was a bit of a hit piece) says about the church's publication of the JS papers-

"The reporter’s follow-up assertion is just baffling: “But the church has not actively disseminated most of these documents …” What … what does that mean? What’s the standard for active dissemination? They’re being open and honest in secret?"

Sometimes that's exactly what it seems like certain critics are saying.

The MMM article was in an Ensign so you can't get much better than that (beyond a letter being read out in SM). Having said that, MMM was "new news" in 2012 for me. I was not even aware of the name. It's not ever mentioned in UK as there's no "collective awareness" of the impact to families.

The JSP have not been widely promoted yet. At the beginning of this year I asked a class of 80 (a reasonable sample size, though not globally representative), who knew about it and only 1. But they will now appear as results in the LDS.org search results. So much more proactively pushed.

[ERayR]

Ok so I have been pondering this and yes it is choice. At this point, for me, based in study, prayer ,discussions and so on the evidence seems compelling to me enought to choose and decide the Church is not what I thought it was. I have also made a choice to go slow with this and that is what I am doing. I also had made a choice to try to go back to where I was and put the genie back in the bottle. That choice has not worked yet and I do not see how it can. There are some things that just cannot be turned back.

I applaud your choice to go slow. For what it is worth I don't think the genie will go back in the bottle. It has already left some deep scars. Also for what it is worth I think it is possible to change your perspective and look at these things and evaluate them from the perspective of the Book of Mormon and the restoration is true instead of evaluating the Book of Mormon and the restoration by what troubles you. It becomes a matter of perspective. The Book of Mormon and the restoration happened and all else must be evaluated per your perspective on those two events. Do you let human foibles wipe out these events? Or do you look at human failings as irrelevant to the big picture. God has used some very human people to accomplish his work. Adulterers, murders and other short comings. Funny fellow, God. he has a knack for turning lemons into lemonade.

[Teancum]

Yes, I can agree that it is heartbreaking that what you have chosen to believe has led you to this point when others, with the same information, have retained their testimonies.

Sure many have retained their testimonies. Many who know more than me and who are much smarter. But do smart believing Catholics persuade you to be Catholic? Or smart brilliant athiests and atheist? Or so on.

People believe all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. The smart believing Latter day saints who know all the issues and still believe are far fewer in number than say the smart believing evangelical Christian who thinks the smart LDS person is in error.

It uses to compell me that there were so many smart LDS persons who know the issues and still believe but now it does not mostly for the reasons I state above.

If such an argument is compelling to you why is it for that which favors the LDS position but not for that which favors something else?

[ERayR]

Sure many have retained their testimonies. Many who know more than me and who are much smarter. But do smart believing Catholics persuade you to be Catholic? Or smart brilliant athiests and atheist? Or so on.

People believe all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. The smart believing Latter day saints who know all the issues and still believe are far fewer in number than say the smart believing evangelical Christian who thinks the smart LDS person is in error.

It uses to compell me that there were so many smart LDS persons who know the issues and still believe but now it does not mostly for the reasons I state above.

If such an argument is compelling to you why is it for that which favors the LDS position but not for that which favors something else?

It wasn't meant to be a negative and I surely believe you should and must be the guide of your own course and I should have known that you had already considered it. Let me ask (no malice intended) have you gotten past blaming the Church for not being what you thought it was. That your perceptions are just that, your perceptions just as my perceptions are my perceptions for which I am responsible.

If so please shake my hand and be my friend.

To answer your last question: I favor the LDS position because of spiritual witnesses which I won't deny and probably for no other reason.

Edited July 24, 2013 by ERayR

[Teancum]

It wasn't meant to be a negative and I surely believe you should and must be the guide of your own course and I should have known that you had already considered it. Let me ask (no malice intended) have you gotten past blaming the Church for not being what you thought it was. That your perceptions are just that, your perceptions just as my perceptions are my perceptions for which I am responsible.

If so please shake my hand and be my friend.

To answer your last question: I favor the LDS position because of spiritual witnesses which I won't deny and probably for no other reason.

I am not sure where I am at as far as the Church and how it taught/teaches what it does. I think I am moving past the anger stage. I need to think about it more. But I am happy to shake hands and be your friend. I appreciate the way our dialogue has headed the past few posts.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 21 July 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I beg to differ. It was a fair to middling hatchet job.

Robert F. Smith, on 23 July 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

So, "I beg to differ. It was a fair to middling hatchet job" is now "ad hominem and character assassination"?

Reminds me all the people who called Gregory Smith's article on John Dehlin "a hit piece" -- without having read it. John Dehlin himself succeeding in having the article suppressed (censorship) for awhile.

I was commenting on a fair to middling article on the Mormons which did not include critical scrutiny of the claims being made. In other words, the author did not do her homework.

My main issue was your calling him a "yokel" (noun: a rustic; a country bumpkin). But also the suggestion that he had collaborated in a "hatchet job" (noun: a maliciously destructive critique or act).

So yes, to call him both a country bumpkin and malicious is an unfair attack on his character.

I'm aware that the "hatchet job" comment may have been solely aimed at the NYT journalist. Even so, that makes the journalist malicious and the interviewee a rustic/bumpkin who enables something malicious. Both of which are ad hominem because you are making assumptions about intelligence and/or ulterior motives. Not all non-Mormon journalists are out to get us. Some just want a scoop. Or sometimes even what they consider balanced journalism. The journalist may be mal-informed rather malicious.

You and Kevin are immersed in these historical topics. Not everyone else is. Some people feel they are too busy serving to spend time historically learning. Historical study doesn't clothe the naked, feed the hungry and care for the sick. President Monson makes serving others a central tenet of his prophetic message. He rarely mandates historical awareness as a church-wide expression of faith.

I personally hugely value the historical work that you and your counterparts do. It is a work of saving souls too because your ability to provide a counter-view to some of the critical claims has stopped me from marching out the door in unjustified outrage. Kevin's posts on "Prophets and Paradigms" may turn out to be one of the most significant "thought influencers" I've read this year. Or decade.

2 years ago I had very little interest in any of 1800s church history. I knew the bare basics. I considered the events of 180+ years ago to be of little consequence to my ability to live the gospel 'today.' But I'm no yokel/bumpkin. I would consider myself relatively well-educated. I'm, ironically, a history graduate (but in European history). I'm also a professional researcher. Which is why, when I started to finally engage in our history in 2012, I made myself read all sides of the story and the original sources, in context, if I could.

After a few initial weeks of "shocking revelations" (and many were entirely new news to me), which caused my confidence in the church to start to crumble, I made myself commit to at least one year of study before doing anything drastic. A year came and went. I'm still studying. Elder Mattsson took 8 years of study. And with similar resources to you, me and Kevin, he reached a different conclusion. My conclusions are different too and probably closer to Elder Mattsson's on the spectrum of belief.

I think we should show him a little more respect than making accusations of naivety, being a yokel, having malicious intent and, by implication (or direct accusation from other participants), of being a fraud.

Some of what you say here is all too true, but I did not suggest that Mattsson was malicious, nor did I aver that he collaborated (like a Quisling). Your definition of "yokel" seems to have adequately captured the concept of terminal naivete. As to the author of the NYT hit piece, perhaps you'd like to explain to me how she got so much wrong. Was it the fault of journalism school? An animus for Mormons? Carelessness?

Indeed, a non-Mormon commentator (a woman named Mollie) with a whole lot more acumen and savvy took the measure of that NYT piece, and justifies what I said at nearly every turn. You figure it out: http://www.patheos.c...-skeptic-piece/ .

Edited July 25, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

Some of what you say here is all too true, but I did not suggest that Mattsson was malicious, nor did I aver that he collaborated (like a Quisling). Your definition of "yokel" seems to have adequately captured the concept of terminal naivete. As to the author of the NYT hit piece, perhaps you'd like to explain to me how she got so much wrong. Was it the fault of journalism school? An animus for Mormons? Carelessness?

Indeed, a non-Mormon commentator (a woman named Mollie) with a whole lot more acumen and savvy took the measure of that NYT piece, and justifies what I said at nearly every turn. You figure it out: http://www.patheos.c...-skeptic-piece/ .

With the exception of our very own Scott Lloyd, I'd spend very little time defending journalists under any circumstances. So given you've clarified that "hatchet job" was only about the journalist I'm not at any great pains to defend their honour. As mentioned to Cal at the top of the page, I respond to the Patheos piece as follows:

They make a big deal of this: "everyone is taught that Joseph Smith introduced the principle of polygamy. I’m not sure how much people get into how much he practiced his own teaching, but for those of us with some knowledge of LDS teaching on the matter, the idea that it would be foundation-crumbling to learn he practiced what he taught is — weird.

But only a passing reference to this: "For what it’s worth, Bushman is quoted saying that many Mormons don’t think Smith practiced polygamy."

Given Bushman has probably given more firesides/talks than most on Joseph's polygamy, so is probably in the best position to comment on it. He says it is not taught in church as a matter of policy and as a result many don't know about it. Turley, in the Sweden fireside, says something similar.

I do agree with one thing though. That survey by John Dehlin is not reliable data to quote in the way this article has. It's a useful way to get a rough profile of the people who are disaffected AND engaged in the bloggernacle (where sampling was done), but it's in no way representative of "why people leave." But journalists rarely seem to worry about research rigour in surveys. There's a huge online company in UK (onepoll.com) who run daily surveys of 1000-2000 people. The questions are phrased so that there's a headline in it whether you pick answer 'a' or 'b.' The respondent don't care because they're getting 10p per survey completion, the journalist/editors don't care because they get to fill column inches with fluffy stories and the clients don't care because when a story says "a survey by WidgetsRus said..." they imagine it's going to impact brand awareness and sales in some way.

As for Mattsson. When he says he was unaware of Joseph's polygamy you and Kevin have offered too choices:

- You find it unbelievable (with therefore an insinuation that we should not believe Mattsson and instead take him as a fruad)

- You find it inexcusable (and call him naive or a 'yokel').

The word 'yokel' is simply rude and is an attack on his character/intellect. Do you accept or reject Bushman and Turley's conclusion that many members don't know about Joseph's polygamy? Do you accept that some members don't care remotely about church history much further than the first vision story and an occasional pioneer treck? If Elder Mattsson was always so busy serving, he might not have set asside time for historical investigation. That doesn't make him a yokel.

When he's interviewed by Dehlin it seems to be more about the full extent of Joseph's polygamy rather than the existence of polygamy at all that bothered him.

[CV75]

When he's interviewed by Dehlin it seems to be more about the full extent of Joseph's polygamy rather than the existence of polygamy at all that bothered him.

There is an interesting read on the "Mormon Effect" thread, and part of a post that reads, "Traditional Christian denominations seem not to stress higher education as much because they don't want their children going to large universities where they might become secularized and prefer to send them to seminary schools or church sponsored schools. Yet, Mormons don't worry about that and in so many ways encourage higher education and they still have the ability to not become secularized and are even more active." (BOLD MINE)

In the case of Joseph's ploygamy, "Mormons don't worry about that" because when they encouraged to seek knowledge and study and learn by faith, one of the benefits of that approach is, when learners comes across history they haven't been exposed to before, the same discipline and appreciation for arriving at the truth comes into play and a personal crisis is averted.

Where such a crisis has not been averted, there are many ways to reach out and minister. But figuring how to do facilitate or perform the seeking, studying, "faithing," etc. for someone else is like "teaching them not to fish" to borrow a phrase.

[cursor]

Do we go to Church to learn how to be more Christ-like or to learn History?

If you want to learn history then do it on your own time and don't waste mine just because you want to be spoon fed everything.

Might that seriously insinuate that it's OK to be "spoon-fed" with respect to becoming Christ-like, but it's not OK to be "spoon-fed" with respect to other significant issues ... like "History" (capitalization is your emphasis, not mine)? In what significant vein, exactly, is "spoon-feeding" not absolutely necessary? Can you possibly imagine any reasonable alternative to gradual/transitional learning (regardless of the subject matter)? How about math, science, health ... hell, even "History." Really.

Please consider 2NE 28:30, seriously.

[cursor]

Why? It is the Churches responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons. It is the individuals responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them.

Wait ... you're kidding, right?

"Why? is it the Churches [sic] responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons[?]"

If that responsibility doesn't belong to the Church ... then to whom exactly might it belong?!

"It is the individuals [sic] responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases.

So, exactly how is it NOT "the Church's responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons"?

Edited July 27, 2013 by cursor

[ERayR]

Wait ... you're kidding, right?

"Why? is it the Churches [sic] responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons[?]"

If that responsibility doesn't belong to the Church ... then to whom exactly might it belong?!

"It is the individuals responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases.

So, exactly how is it NOT "the Church's responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons"?

You misread what I posted. I was answering another post with a question hence the Why followed by the question mark(punctuation) Then the statement of the Churches resposibility to teach spiritual matters and the individuals responsibility to seek out such things as history on their own.

[cursor]

Senator, on 21 July 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

Yokel?

Yes. A yokel. What else would you call someone so unimaginably naive? Kevin agrees with me in emphatic terms. Do you have a better word than "yokel"?

I find that to be very nearly offensive.

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that there is not a more positive and thoughtful way to address this sensitive subject. Perhaps ... give it a serious, prayerful minute. Hey, give it a day (or a week) sans emotional posting. I'm certain that there might be a real and constructive way to offer a real/enlightened response to the issue.

I apologize, but I've never learned my father's mastery for polite avoidance. Perhaps jointly we can come to a more collectively recognized need for significant, interactive dialogue on difficult subjects. That class of patient and thoughtful consideration is certainly something that he would advocate.

Edited July 27, 2013 by cursor

[canard78]

Wait ... you're kidding, right?

"Why? is it the Churches [sic] responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons[?]"

If that responsibility doesn't belong to the Church ... then to whom exactly might it belong?!

"It is the individuals responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases.

So, exactly how is it NOT "the Church's responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons"?

Thank you for your contribution cursor. As your father, John Sorenson, is about to show with his Mormon Codex, sometimes a more detailed understanding of Mormon history, presented on our terms, not on the critics terms, can enhance faith.

Some here insist that the church should have no role in church history. That despite the fact that every piece of scripture is grounded in history.

Every section of the D&C is a response to a moment in history.

The Revelations in Context section of LDS.org shows that a more detailed understanding, without whitewashing, can actually enhance the scripture, not detract from it.

[canard78]

You misread what I posted. I was answering another post with a question hence the Why followed by the question mark(punctuation) Then the statement of the Churches resposibility to teach spiritual matters and the individuals responsibility to seek out such things as history on their own.

You didn't answer this though:

ERayR said: "It is the individuals responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

Cursor said: "What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases."

[cursor]

You misread what I posted. I was answering another post with a question hence the Why followed by the question mark(punctuation) Then the statement of the Churches resposibility to teach spiritual matters and the individuals responsibility to seek out such things as history on their own.

The question remains, I'm afraid. Consider your statements that I quoted, and then think about the statements that I made regarding those quoted statements. Perhaps you can more descriptively tell me where I've misinterpreted.

[canard78]

I find that to be very nearly offensive.

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that there is not a more positive and thoughtful way to address this sensitive subject. Perhaps ... give it a serious, prayerful minute. Hey, give it a day (or a week) sans emotional posting. I'm certain that there might be a real and constructive way to offer a real/enlightened response to the issue.

I apologize, but I've never learned my father's mastery for polite avoidance. Perhaps jointly we can come to a more collectively recognized need for significant, interactive dialogue on difficult subjects. That class of patient and thoughtful consideration is certainly something that he would advocate.

I'm glad that someone within the apologetics community thinks so.

So far the participants of the various threads have described Mattsson as:

- A liar/a fraud/manipulative ('Alan')

- Naive/a yokel (Robert)

- Childish/limited intellect/weak/pitiable ('UVU78')

I prefer your approach.

[cursor]

Wait ... you're kidding, right?

"Why? is it the Churches [sic] responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons[?]"

If that responsibility doesn't belong to the Church ... then to whom exactly might it belong?!

"It is the individuals [sic] responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases.

So, exactly how is it NOT "the Church's responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons"?

Please, if you are going to quote me, don't insert your comments into what I said ... thanks. For the record, I did NOT say "What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?" There are formatting options available within this forum environment that allow for the responsible separation of quotes from other's statement. Thanks.

[cursor]

I'm glad that someone within the apologetics community thinks so.

Why unnecessarily/incorrectly connect me with said community?

[ERayR]

Wait ... you're kidding, right?

"Why? is it the Churches [sic] responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons[?]"

If that responsibility doesn't belong to the Church ... then to whom exactly might it belong?!

Exactly it is the churches job to teach the spiritual lesson.

"It is the individuals [sic] responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases.

So, exactly how is it NOT "the Church's responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons"?

I guess I just don't see the spirituality in taking half a Sunday class period discussing the perceived sex life of our 18th century Church leaders If it was seen fit to call and train instructors to do this for a weekday or evening class that would be fine with me. My thinking is it would not change anything. The rhetoric would be "Oh my this is not what I read on the internet they are not teaching it correctly">

[gree0232]

I think there are a couple of things to keep in perspective.

#1 - From the very start, think Oliver Cowdry, the church (and quite frankly any church), has had high level defections and criticism. Its the nature of man to doubt, and frankly to fight. The church moves on and the gospel remains true. We mourn those who have lost it, but the loss in theirs, and their angry words and doubts more a reflection of what they have lost than a reflection of scripture.

#2 - There seems to be what I would call and improper demand for perfection in the church, and that any human failing somehow invalidates the church. Yet the reality is that there is only one perfect man - Jesus himself. All the rest of us are imperfect, be they overt sinners or the inspired leaders of the church. It is inevitable that we as humans, even those actively following Christ, will err. One of the truest things about our church is its ability to acknowledge that it has made a mistake and move on.

What does it say about a person who hammers home on a past mistake? One already corrected, in order to hammer those who are no longer making the mistake? I believe Jesus himself said something about being the first to caste a stone in this circumstance, for I will be that those once of the church and so easily casting stones would perhaps not be so inviting of an examination of their own standards and mistakes.

#3 - Part of the article that bothered me was the declaration that some Mormons grew distant after he left the church. Should this come as a surprise? When you claim that you had no idea polygamy was a part of the church's history? Some people are naturally going to shy away from you. That is not a church thing, its an organizational thing. If you leave PETA and start wearing fur ... I'll bet you penny to pound that many PETA members would grow pretty distant as well.

What is telling is that, back to #1, the church is extremely tolerant of the criticisms that arise from former members, etc. There is no counter punch, there is no public rebuttal. Those who wish to check the veracity of the story are simply invited to formulate their own opinion. I daresay that an honest examination of the facts would find the claim that polygamy was unknown by a high ranking member of the church to be frankly dishonest. Those that will not bother to check basic facts wouldn't be swayed by a rebuttal in any case, and would simply find the rebuttal a 'call to arms' in defense of those 'attacked' by the church.

Again, these kinds of stories have been their from the beginning, and they will continue to be there as we all take our journey in life. All we can do is pray that the member in question realize what he has lost and why (his own choice), and that he can regain full fellowship by exercising the same agency ... just as Oliver Cowdry did.